sammccall added a comment. In D134813#3834540 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134813#3834540>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D134813#3834496 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134813#3834496>, @sammccall > wrote: > >> Sorry, Monday was a holiday here... > > No worries, I hope you had a good holiday! Thanks :-) >> I don't think unconditionally including the filename in printQualifiedName() >> is great for tools, it can be unreasonably long and is generally just noise >> when shown in the context of that file. I'm surprised that USR generation + >> that clangd test are the only things that broke! Poor test coverage in the >> tools, I think :-( >> If the intent is to change this for diagnostics only, can it be behind a >> PrintingPolicy flag? > > Diagnostics are largely the intent for this and I could probably put a > printing policy flag, but I'm not yet convinced that printing nothing is > actually better for tools in general. Agreed - I think in my perfect world we'd switch between `(unnammed struct)` and `(unnamed struct at ...)`. ... wait, we already have `PrintingPolicy::AnonymousTagLocations`, looks like that does what I want. I've set this for clangd in e212a4f838f17e2d37b1d572d8c1b49c50d7fe17 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGe212a4f838f17e2d37b1d572d8c1b49c50d7fe17>, so this patch should be fine with just updating the string in the test to `(unnamed class)`. > I think it really boils down to whether the name is user-facing or not. e.g., > for USRs, it seems like we don't want to print this sort of thing, which is > fine because users don't stare at those. But tools like clang-query output > various names of things based on user queries, and it seems like it's less > useful for that output to print nothing for the name. Yeah, I can't see a case where silently printing *nothing* is clearly what we want. Even USRs mostly don't do that: they try to print the name, detect nothing got printed, and print something else instead! > That said, it still sounds like we should have a printing policy for it, but > what should the default be? (I lean towards "print more information instead > of less".) Given that we have a way to suppress the filename, I don't think we should add another printing policy (until we see a reason to). Changing USR generation to not rely on this detail seems easier, I can take a stab at this. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134813/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134813 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
